Landmann v. Landmann, 133 N.E.3d 117

Rachel Landmann sought and obtained an ex parte emergency order of protection against her ex-husband Katlin Landmann after their daughter O.L. returned from visitation with bruising; Rachel testified O.L. said Katlin spanked her 27 times for not knowing a math answer and took her to the ER.
At the plenary hearing Katlin admitted spanking O.L. but said it was three spankings as discipline; he denied knowingly causing marks and asserted the spanking was reasonable parental direction.
Petitioner’s counsel referenced hospital photographs of O.L.’s injuries but the photographs were not introduced at the hearing; respondent asked the court to apply an adverse-inference instruction for their absence.
The trial court entered a one-year plenary order of protection, finding respondent had “abused Petitioner and/or the children” and checking statutory-form boxes that the respondent’s actions would likely cause irreparable harm and that relief was necessary.
Respondent appealed, arguing hearsay was admitted, an adverse inference should have been applied, and the evidence failed to show abuse; the Appellate Court reviewed under the public-interest mootness exception because the order had expired.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court complied with 750 ILCS 60/214(c)(3)(i) by making required findings about statutory factors	Rachel argued the court considered credibility and evidence and thus satisfied the statute	Katlin argued the court failed to make the written/oral findings required about nature, frequency, severity, pattern, consequences and child-danger factors	Reversed and vacated: court did not set forth the required findings in writing or on the record as required by the Act, so order must be vacated
Admissibility of child’s out-of-court statement to petitioner (hearsay)	Rachel relied on O.L.’s statement as evidence of abuse	Katlin objected to hearsay; also disputed abuse characterization	Appellate Court did not reach merits of hearsay issue because the statutory-finding error controlled the outcome
Request to apply adverse-inference rule for missing photographs	Rachel did not introduce ER photographs; she relied on testimony that photos existed	Katlin sought adverse inference because petitioner had (allegedly) exclusive access to photos and did not produce them	Appellate Court did not decide this argument due to reversal on statutory-finding ground

Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342 (discussion of central inquiry in protection-order proceedings)
In re J.T., 221 Ill. 2d 338 (mootness doctrine and exceptions)
Hedrick-Koroll v. Bagley, 352 Ill. App. 3d 590 (expired protection order and mootness)
Whitten v. Whitten, 292 Ill. App. 3d 780 (public-interest exception to mootness)
People ex rel. Minteer v. Kozin, 297 Ill. App. 3d 1038 (need for statutorily required findings when entering protection orders)
In re Marriage of McCoy, 253 Ill. App. 3d 958 (written order satisfying minimum statutory requirements)
In re Marriage of Henry, 297 Ill. App. 3d 139 (statutory-findings requirement)
In re Marriage of Healy, 263 Ill. App. 3d 596 (same statutory-findings principle)